I'm Joeverkill, and this is a Right-Wing Rant. And this one's about the issue I feel is the most important to the survival of the human race in this millennium.
We are living in a time of surmounting crises. Energy, food, and metal shortages. Near-deadly levels of global warming and pollution. Rising poverty and crime. Growing economic inequality. These problems are all caused by a number of factors, but they share one major common source: they all borne from levels of resource consumption that are too high to be sustained.
The greenies will tell you that we need to live cleaner. Every person needs to consume less for the planet to survive. And maybe that's a good point. Finding more efficient ways of running our lives and our economy is a laudable and important goal. Some may claim that technological advances are the answer. Certainly, technological advancement toward a more efficient society is a laudable goal. But how soon can we expect these advancements to come? They are not guaranteed.
But resource consumption per capita is only one half of the equation here, and it's completely appalling to me that no one in the Western world is attempting to address the other half -- the number of people consuming these resources.
Any credible environmental scientist will tell you that we have passed the point at which many natural resources are renewable. At the present commercial fishery rate, for example, we will strip the sea beyond the point of recovery some time in the next one hundred years. Global warming will continue to increase unless carbon emissions are massively decreased.
At the present rate of resource consumption, the world is already beyond carrying capacity. The world is already overpopulated. And the problem is worse than it seems. Even at a scant 1% population growth rate, a nation's population will double in about 70 years. Double the population and double the resource consumption. You double the environmental impact and carbon footprint. If it seems like the U.S.'s energy problems are bad now, just wait until there are 600 million people living here. It's not far off.
Contrary to what many people believe, overpopulation is primarily a problem of developed countries. These countries consume the greatest amount of resources per capita, and therefore any efforts to curb resource consumption should primarily target developed and developing nations. These countries need to aim for negative population growth.
My plan (though I'm aware no one's asking me) would be to convene with other developed and developing nations and to reach an accord by which population control would be made a high priority. This plan would involve the following admittedly somewhat drastic measures:
Internally
- Subsidize birth control in any and all forms. Including abortions.
- Implement harsh tax penalties for those who have more than two children.
- Implement more stringent immigration restrictions.
- "Baby licenses." You need a license to drive a car, you need a license to own a gun (in some states), so why shouldn't you be required to have a license in order to reproduce? A human being is the most deadly thing on the planet. It is the single greatest resource consumer. Not everyone should be allowed to create one.
Externally
- Employ strict embargoes on any and all nations refusing to abide by the proposed population control pact.
- Refuse to provide any sort of aid or assistance to any and all nations refusing to abide by the proposed population control pact.
That's my plan, not that anyone's asking me.
Population control, in my opinion, is absolutely the most pressing issue for the survival of the human species. We need to do something, and we need to do it soon.
I'm Joeverkill, and this has been a Right-Wing Rant.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Right-Wing Rant: Population Control
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 responses:
Hey Joe, I am glad you brought up this point because one of the things that has been troubling me about the Bush administration is its attitude towards foregin aid, specifically contributions to AIDS prevention and treatment programs in Africe and the third world.
You see when they started giving out money to fight AIDS they attached certain conditions - Starting in 2004, the United States recommended -- and by 2006 required -- that 33 percent of all prevention funding be earmarked for abstinence and fidelity programs. Check this article out -
http://www.alternet.org/story/44852/
Now this unrealistic position is a direct result of Bush promoting the agenda of his Christian right base. What it does is divert money from teaching people the healthy and efficient way (condoms)to prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancies and instead furthers Bush's God fearing bullshit that results in more unecessary deaths and births. Talk about tilting at windmills.
whenever people talk about "population" control, it always makes me think of hunting.
mainly because when anti-hunting pussies get all over the pro-hunting rednecks, the rednecks cite population control as the reason hunting is necessary and humane.
I don't really know how it's better to die of a gunshot wound than starvation, but i guess my point is this:
We have bigger problems to address than overpopulation.
If we don't get a handle on pollution in general, in 20 years it won't matter if there are five people on earth or five trillion. The fact remains that however many motherfuckers are here, them motherfuckers is gu'n' die.
straight up.
so i really can't be bothered to give a flying fuck about an issue that will eventually sort itself out one way or another. For now, anyway, we don't have luxury of worrying about something as frivolous as population control.
P.S. - if you don't think pollution is a big enough deal, then let's go with "the united states seems hell bent on starting ww3" as a bigger problem than global population control.
Mr. Murder, I'll let the short-sightedness and poor logic of your comment stand for themselves. I addressed your point in my original post.
Joeverkill, I keep meaning to post and tell you that I adore you. Anyway.
While I am against abortion personally (and very conflicted on it from a political standpoint because of that personal bias), I do believe in population control. My friends and I have often discussed the idea of having a baby license, and particularly in limiting the reproduction of any parent on government assistance.
In my fantasy dictatorship, I would say: If you can't afford to support your two children, don't have a third. Instead of giving you more tax breaks and more welfare and more food stamps, I will take that third child away from you and give it to a couple wanting to adopt. On second thought, I might just take all three kids (AND your government support) because you're a bitch who can't make responsible decisions. "But no one wants to adopt older children! They'll get all fucked up in the foster care system!" Oh no no. Any parent who wants to adopt a baby has to adopt an older child first! We should implement this principle at animal shelters as well. Relieve some of the burden of the poor unwanted children, and then you can have a cute, stinky-diapered bundle of joy courtesy of your local high school dropouts.
My best friend and I have discussed the possibility of forcibly keeping women from conceiving (mandatory IUD's prior to baby licensing or some such), but we decided that *would* impinge on personal freedoms just a bit much. Ah well.
Minotauro:
I agree to some extent on the abstinence-only thing. Teaching abstinence as a means of birth control has been shown to be horribly ineffective. At the same time, however, I think that a nation contributing aid to another country should have some right to request how that aid is spent.
Nielsd:
The demographic shift you speak of is indeed happening in most developed nations. While it's a nice idea to "spread the wealth around" and it should be a basic human right to move from place to place if you are able, it is irresponsible of developed nations to grow. Rates of resource consumption are simply too high.
Stacy,
Thanks for adoring me. I tend to have that effect.
You're right... mandatory IUD's and fallopian tube surgeries are way too intrusive. However, I really don't think they would be necessary to enforce laws like the ones I've proposed. If we stoppedstop subsidizing people who have more children than they can afford, we would solve the vast majority of the problem. Fertility rates in the U.S. (and most places) follow a very strong inverse correlation with income levels. Stop providing these people with a free teat to suckle, and you implicitly discourage them from overbreeding. It sounds harsh, but it's necessary.
Note that I am not advocating any sort of law that would prevent people with low levels of income from having children. They're welcome to have one, or even two. But when that third one drops, no more food stamps, no more subsidized housing, no more GI bill. Nothing. Let 'em starve.
And yeah, the Catholics would complain. But you know what? The inquisition. The Crusades (not the least of which, the Children's Crusade). The insitutional molestation of children. The sale of indulgences in medival Europe. Pope Pius XI's complicity with the Nazis. They've been wrong a lot, and they're wrong on the birth control issue.
Just my two cents.
Some of the measures Stacey mention make me very uneasy because of their totalitarian nature. I am reminded of the forcible sterilisation programs conducted in emergency India and in rural China. That is no way to treat people. Those programs are guilty of the same arrogance that America shows by inserting moral riders into AIDS programs that were meant to save people's lives.
Governments and philanthropists need to have a basic respect for the intelligence and judgement of the people. If you could show the people that it would be in their best interest to have fewer children instead of waving a taxation or vasectomy stick in front of them, you would have a better chance of ensuring
compliance.
The point of these programs should be to improve the people's lives and not to impose state control over their bodies. That is also the reason I am pro choice. A woman should have complete freedom over her body, as it is she has little control over the way it is commodified, sold or used.
As for the AIDS money, I agree that America or any country has the right to attach some sensible conditions to their packages. However what Bush is trying to do here is to promote a narrow religious agenda within a program designed to protect people from disease in deplorable conditions, conditions where high minded principles become moot because of the extent of poverty and sexual violence.
Also, all it does it piss off the people of the impoverished states that are receipiants of the money. Even beggars have their dignity, they don't like to be told to spend the change you give them on organic food. It is an irony that states to which America sends it's money harbor terrorist groups that hate America but this 'strings attached to a bait' attitude to giving explains the reason for that.
I agree with you that imposing physical force on people in an effort to control population is totalitarian and wrong. Beyond that, it's far more effort than it's worth.
However, I don't agree with you on your point that people would jump on board for population control if the government could convince them it's a good idea. The vast majority of Americans accept it as a fact that burning massive quantities of gasoline is bad for them and their progeny, and yet people still drive SUV's.
One of the most ridiculous aspects of the Bush administration's environmental policy is their reliance on "voluntary measures." So few companies abide by them that they're tantamount to doing nothing. Companies are just like people. They are selfish and they are short-sighted.
You and I will probably never agree on this point, Minotauro. I think the vast majority of people are out there are incredibly stupid, and I have very little faith in them.
Regarding the Bush foreign aid thing, yeah, I agree that the demands he's making are ridiculous. However, the line between appropriate requests and inappropriate ones is not always so clear. For example, we should certainly be allowed to demand that the aid we send to Myanmar for cyclone relief is spent on reconstruction or services for those disenfranchised by the storm, rather than being spent on new tanks for the Junta. I agree that it's wrong for us to request that money sent to Africa (or anywhere) be spent on abstinence programs, but I must argue that it is our right to make requests regarding how it is spent.
On a lighter note, "Sexual Violence" would be a great band name.
The Myanmar situation is horrible, they are refusing to use the aid thats being thrown at them. What's worse is that at this time of humanitarian crisis, they are actually going forward with a constitutional referendum. The proposed measures will allow some changes, including the semblance of multiparty democracy. I say semblance because the changed constitution still guarantees the military a 25 pecent stake in parliamentary seats and other exceptional powers.
Since the people are completely scared and even more dependant on the military for help for aid, they dare not vote against the measures. Meanwhile the junta turns away the ships filled with aid that come into their harbors or use the aid to complete preparations for the referedum.
Oh yeah, as for the band name, you know what would be better - 'Bisexual Violence' or maybe 'The Violent Bisexuals'. That would kick ass.
joe, i definitely agree with you there. rising population is the largest part of the litany of problems we're going to have to deal with in the 21st century. global warming, gas shortages, and food shortages all trace their roots back to this problem, along with the increasing industrialization and bourgeoisification (that's not a word but fuck it) of the world, meaning even more cars, demand for high-energy food items like red meat, etc.
subsidized birth control should be happening already. once the jesusfreaks go away a little bit, and we can refine our stance on abortions (personally, i support only early-term except in cases of rape/incest).
forced measures to restrict child birth a la china will never work in this country, along with many other western countries. there are many fringe groups and religious nuts who still buy that "colonize the earth" bullshit, and they'll revolt if we get too intense. tax incentives along with tightening of welfare laws could certainly help. i don't know how it's broken down now, but capping welfare aid additions at one child ought to help.
abstinence and fidelity programs are just batshit nuts. the best way to influence people is to hit them in the wallet, not moralize to them.
as for the industrialized nations being the biggest energy users per capita (usa #1!), i anticipate this reversing, or at least levelling off, as we begin to become more wise to energy efficiency (by necessity), while the developing world continues to adopt our old habits of coal usage and internal combustion engines. many of our per-capita energy problems can be resolved by infrastructure changes and removal of supply chain inefficiencies, which the market of the coming years will naturally drive.
Minotauro and Joe,
I was (mostly) kidding about the whole forcible sterilization thing. I don't believe it is the government's right to make those decisions. But it is the right of the government (and the people paying into the system) to not have their resources bled out by irresponsible procreators. I just don't think we should consent to support them.
I agree with Joe in the belief that people as a group are predisposed to stupidity and selfishness. For every person who will "do the right thing" there is at least one who won't, and usually more than one. It's like parenting... Don't lock your kids in their rooms until they graduate high school -- that's unfair. But don't pay their $400 cell phone bill and do their homework so they won't flunk and get stuck in summer school. It's called fostering personal accountability... an element I find lacking in the arguments of many liberals. I feel like we have a tendency to want to clean up after others because we don't have the balls to let them suffer, even if we know they've made their own bed.
P.S. I'll leave the Catholics alone because I think they suffer enough without my insults.
Good call, Stacey.
A lot of liberals are afraid to drop the hammer on deadbeats and criminals because deep down, they don't believe that there are any deadbeats or criminals. Just poor lil' guys who have lost their way.
We conservative folk know that they're wrong. It is the government's job to protect upstanding citizens from the moochers and the filth, not to subsidize mooching and filthery.
Let's take the cable TV out of prisons. Let's take the foodstamps out of the hands of fat people with Air Jordans. Let's stop talking about video games and movies causing violent crime and instead get tough on those who commit violent crimes. Let's stop forcing students to go to secondary school if they don't want be there, or don't deserve to.
Ah, but I'm way off topic. Thanks for your comments.
Joe, I could go on for days on some of the topics you just raised.
I believe there are real criminals, and there are plenty of good people who have lost their way. But really, what's the point of the distinction? We need consequences to learn how to correct our behavior.
And speaking of prison -- criminals go there to be punished, and to be removed from endangering, harassing, or polluting the general population. They don't go there to be "rehabilitated." Let's face it -- that's just a crock of shit. If a prisoner DOES make use of the great tools in place, that's wonderful! I am all for hearing about prisoners who earn a GED or complete counseling or join a 12 step program. But that's not why I want to see criminals go to prison. I want them to be punished because they deserve it. Yeah, I said it. And I want them in there because the rest of us shouldn't have to fear them.
Let's stop making things so cushy. Restrict food stamps to healthy, essential food items. If you want to splurge for your family, forego that pack of smokes and buy a carton of Dreyers. If you land your ass in prison, read a book. Here's a crazy idea... if you are sentenced to 20 years... serve 20 years!
Great, now I'm all riled up.
Fuck, I can't remember who the guy was who just wrote this book and exactly what the name of the book was, but his main argument wasn't that population control was a bad thing, it was just that nearly all past instances of governments enacting this have devolved into racial and socio-economic cleansing, no matter how hard the government tried to not let it turn into that.
The idea of birthing licenses IS a good idea to me, though unless people are sterilized to begin with (which I'm not convinced is a good idea), it would be different from obtaining a firearms license in that a guy without a firearms license wouldn't have a gun to begin with, but two kids fucking would be able to produce a kid pretty easily without that piece of paper.
I certainly find your views on whether this should be a voluntary measure or a government imposed one to be interesting given your libertarian values. I'd've expected you more to say "if we could teach people better how important reproductive responsibility was and how to exercise it better, they could make the decision themselves"
Post a Comment